Beautiful homily yesterday at the daily mass of the Pope at the Casa S. Marta (sigh). News and translation in English of the most relevant part courtesy of Father Z. Emphases from the translation.
“How’s our faith? Is it strong? Or is it sometimes a bit superficial? (all’acqua di rose – “like rose water”, meaning banal, an insufficient substitute, shallow, inadequate)” When difficulties come, “are we courageous like Peter or a little lukewarm?” Peter – he pointed out– didn’t stay silent about the Faith, he din’t descend to compromises, because…
Stellar blog post from David Werling on Ars Orandi about Pretty Pictures and Pious Pelagians.
Besides examining the attitude of the last two Popes concerning the new trendy word, Pelagian - a word used very appropriately by Pope Benedict, whilst Pope Francis gives the idea of simply repeating words he has heard or read somewhere -, this excellent article touches an extremely valid point: the V II “spontaneous”, vague, fluffy, tofu spirituality (yes, the one lived and promoted by Pope Francis) puts upside down the very concept of living and practicing the Catholic Faith.
There are other themes that lead one to a rather worrying reflection (like the separation between the love for the “pretty pictures” from the love from the Truth they represent and should inflame one for; or the brutal, but so true statement of the one who would never allow the Pontiff to teach religion to his children; a very sad fact whose reality is in front of our eyes every day).
Still, what impressed me most is this convincing portrayal of modern Catholicism, in which devout Catholics are considered wrong for being thorough, for taking Catholicism seriously, and for counting their rosaries.
I will not say more, because I could not make justice to the author. You can do much worse than invest the time to follow the link.
I do not know whether this is an American thing, but I read around here and there, particularly in those that I would call the “sensitive” Catholic blogs, commenters complaining that they are insulted on Facebook or Twitter for upholding Christian values.
It is, I think, as if they would seek some sort of validation. “Sniff, sob, someone called me a bigot, and someone else even a … hater! Please, please Mr Blogger and dear commenters, tell me again this is not the case!”
Now, as Catholic I understand there are two sexes, and they are wired in a very different way. The more sensitive, more delicate and more emotional feminine mind may well be more easily upset from derogatory or outright insulting remarks; but when I read that grown men have the same reaction and seek the same emotional reassurance from the “sensitive support troops” I begin to be seriously alarmed at the damages the omnipresent culture of sensitivity and permanent emotional reinforcement has done to us.
It seems to me that some men all too often forget that God made them able to fight wars, to kill and be killed. I wonder how a man whose emotional stability is compromised, and perhaps the entire day ruined, by insults from people he doesn't even know would perform under enemy fire. What I can tell you for certain is that in my culture and generation merely to whine with third parties about what someone else has said about one's moral qualities would have attracted some not entirely unjustified remarks about one's manliness. Speaking of my blogging experience, I find my load of rubbish in the comment bin, and when it passes my spam wall I simply take care in future it doesn't; and the situation is still far more peaceful than at “Homo Smoke”, where the offences and insults were a daily occurrence (don't worry, I wasn't a pansy either). In the present day, Catholic men should, if you ask me, invite controversy, because in this day and age Christianity itself is controversial; far more so than it was the case in the West even during the Cold War, or the flippin' Seventies. Yes, it will cost some friendships; yes, it will cost confrontation, even with people we love, even within our own family. So be it, more deposits on our heavenly savings account; one day, that account will be cashed in.
When I was in elementary school, my teacher used to scold whining boys telling them to stop, because one day they must be fit to go to war. The same I heard from my father several times, so it must have been a staple of conservative boys education; and a wise way of educating a young man it was.
Our generation was fortunate enough not to have to go to war, but this does not mean that it was and is not confronted with serious conflicts, be it communism or secularism.
Christian men are born for combat, and Catholic ones must be twice ready for it. As a Christian, we will be insulted, belittled and mocked rather often. Good! It means we are doing it right. We are supposed to fight the good fight and shrug away insults and mockery; and let us call ourselves lucky enough we are not tested beyond that.
Our generation was not probed in battle. For Heaven's sake, let us not be said that Facebook, Twitter or a discussion forum are a hard probe.
The Eponymous Flower has an interesting post about the “Star Wars Mass”, another pathetic attempt to interest children in the Truth by confusing them, and making it more probable they won't take the Church seriously when they grow up.
Already the use of comparisons that goes beyond, perhaps, a passing reference used to explain the difference (so that the young boys and girls do not end up believing the “Force” is the Holy Ghost) would be too much; but the use of a toy light sabre at Mass isn't funny anymore.
Children need to be told from the start that what is taught to them is by far the most important thing in their lives, and the way they learn and apply what they are taught will decide of their eternal happiness or damnation. This is no matter for jokes, or toys; not at Catechism, much less at Mass.
Dumbing down the Truth for children will cause many of these children to see Catholicism as a dumb child's play when they grow up, and already the turmoil of adolescence will take care for the light sabre & Co. to be dismissed as child's fable. How great the risk is that the child of Truth is thrown away with the dirty water of such stupid exercises, everyone can see.
I was perhaps five years old (perhaps four) when my grandmother (I had two grandmothers: the military Fascist and the soft Fascist; this was the military one) brought me in front of a crucifix, made me kneel, and told me in the sweetest voice she could muster words to the effect that I must pray Jesus to forgive me for my sins, or I will go to hell forever.
I was very, very young, and was rather terrified at the news. I started to cry, which attracted the attention of my mother, and some words ensued. I now realise my grandmother's initiative was due to her fear I would not receive sufficient instruction in the years to come; a fear which was in part unfounded but with some truth in it. She therefore probably thought she must do what she can, when she can.
I heartily agree with you it was probably too much, too abrupt, and too soon. But I would lie to you if I told you the experience was, in the balance of things, a negative one, though it certainly felt rather bad on the day. It certainly instilled in me proper, and I mean proper fear of The Lord.
Beats the light sabre every day.
"Memorare, o piissima Virgo Maria...."
It is sad to think that these words, once devotedly pronounced by countless faithful every day, nowadays rarely adorn Catholic lips. One cannot avoid noticing that when prayers where recited in the allegedly so tough Latin the faithful actually prayed a lot more than today that everything has been made easy for them. There is a lesson to be learned here, I think: you don't do any favour to the faithful by making things shallow; you merely encourage them to become shallow themselves.
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
In his remarks to Welby, Francis said he hoped they could collaborate in promoting the sacredness of life “and the stability of families founded on marriage.” He noted that Welby had recently spoken out on the issue, a reference to his House of Lords speech.
Significantly, though, Francis didn’t specify that marriage should be based on a union between a man and woman, which is how Benedict XVI and John Paul II routinely defined it in a way that made clear their opposition to same-sex marriage.
Vatican officials said Francis’ phrasing was a diplomatic attempt to make his point without making a provocative pronouncement, particularly during an inaugural meeting with Welby that was aimed at getting to know one another. Francis though has steered clear of the gay marriage debate as it has recently roiled France and Britain, and in general has refrained from making headline-grabbing public comments on hot-button current issues.
In these few phrases is condensed all the paucity and moral bankruptcy of this very chatty, approximate, shallow, half-socialist, scandalous, but oh so humble Papacy.
The Pope’s address to Mr Welby – not an off-the-cuff remark, but an official address to one who thinks he is the number one Religious of his country – mentions family and a marriage in a way which implies that families can be either founded on traditional marriage, or not; or alternatively, that marriage is either the Catholic one, or not. Of the two, the Pope deigns himself to prefer the Catholic one. Alleluja.
This obviously looks very much like a huge white flag concerning the issue of sodomitical so-called “marriage”; something the Pope should know it’s sexually perverted and logically inconceivable. Therefore, journalists start, once again, to knock at the door of various Vatican officials and ask - not for the first time -”did he really mean that”?
The tragic, but so credible answer is printed above: the Pope doesn’t like to say the Truth, because the Truth would be “provocative”. I thought that to say the Truth is charitable, and Truth said in charity saves souls. But again I’m not a Jesuit, so what do I know. I am so confused I even think one is accessory in the sin of the sodomites if he is silent on the issue, and anyone who thinks the Pope is not being silent because of the one or other very indirect remark made unrecognisable in order not to be “provocative” is insulting his intelligence.
Even more pathetic is the excuse found for this open capitulation: this was the first meeting with Welby, and the man is such a sensitive flower that his delicate constitution might not have survived the “provocation” of basic Christianity. An argument which also forgets Welby did speak against so-called “gay marriage”, albeit in the usual Anglican way, so we may conclude he would have, very probably, survived the shock.
More brutal still are the words of comment to the Pope’s inactivity in the matter: Pope Francis ” has steered clear of the gay marriage debate as it has recently roiled France and Britain, and in general has refrained from making headline-grabbing public comments on hot-button current issues”. Very truthful observation. The Pontiff has, though, generously made his wisdom about gossip & co. – let alone salvation for atheists – available to the man and the woman on the street; who are – unsurprisingly – very impressed.
Every Italian knows a novel I have often mentioned on this blog, and may end up mentioning in future – much as I dearly love this novel – more than I would like to. In the immortal I Promessi Sposi (“The Betrothed”, here or here, or here in the Original) one of the main characters is Don Abbondio, a timid, weak, and rather cowardly priest ready to betray his priestly duties in the most scandalous of ways when the price might be an awful lot of discomfort or – as he thinks being a weak man – his own life. This character (like the entire novel) has become so much ingrained in the Italian psyche, that un Don Abbondio is still today a favourite way among the better educated to indicate this kind of weak and accommodating priest, “not born with a lion’s heart” and ready to betray his vocation; a vocation for which he must be ready, as Don Abbondio is reminded at the opportune juncture, to die.
In the case of Don Abbondio, the two henchmen you see above threaten him in case he were to celebrate “a certain marriage” between two good people living in the village; a marriage which, as they make clear, “must not take place”. The parallel with today’s situation is striking, with “a certain marriage” (the perverted caricature of the real one) that “must take place”. The Pope, timorous to cause controversy and to be “provocative”, is happy to do what he can to accommodate the wishes of his two bravi, Satan’s henchmen Obama and Cameron.
If you want an even more striking example, look at the letter the Pontiff sent to the British Prime Minister David Cameron ahead of the G8. The Pope is here addressing a Prime Minister who, as he writes, is doing all he can to introduce so-called same-sex marriage, a measure now imminent. Still, his letter does not address the question with one word. In the same letter, though, the Pope accomplishes the unprecedented feat of giving abortion a “social justice” profile, as if for him every Christian principle were worthy of being followed because it’s social, not because it’s God’s law.
Don Abbondio has become Pope, and his thinking, speaking and acting have a striking resemblance with the original’s.
Allow me to finish this blog post with the following words (emphases mine):
“How’s our faith? Is it strong? Or is it sometimes a bit superficial? (all’acqua di rose – “like rose water”, meaning banal, an insufficient substitute, shallow, inadequate)” When difficulties come, “are we courageous like Peter or a little lukewarm?” Peter – he pointed out– didn’t stay silent about the Faith, he din’t descend to compromises, because “the Faith isn’t negotiable.” “There has been, throughout history of the people, this temptation: to chop a piece off the Faith”, the temptation to be a bit “like everyone else does”, the temptation “not to be so very rigid”. “But when we start to cut down the Faith, to negotiate Faith, a little like selling it to the highest bidder”
You know who this is, right?
St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle.
A controversy has erupted on a well-known Catholic blog concerning whether those who receive communion on the tongue are better Catholics than those who don’t.
It seems to me this is muddling the waters.
I would never dream of considering myself a better Catholic than others just because I never received the Holy Communion in the hands once in my life (and, just so you know, never will). I am sure there is an army of people out there who receive in the hands – as they are, alas, allowed to – and are far better Catholics than the wretched sinner writing these lines.
But you see, this is just not the issue.
It is obvious to everyone worth his salt that, whatever was practised by the “first Christians”, later Christians decided pretty soon that kneeling and on the tongue is the proper, because most reverent, way to receive Holy Communion. There can be no discussion about that, because this is a historic fact on which there is no controversy.
Therefore, he who decides that it is fine to receive in the less reverent way just because this is now allowed has not become a worse Catholic than myself, but he certainly receives Communion in worse way than I do. Apart from this, it is still rather difficult for me (my bad, no doubt) to think how one can be persuaded that the consecrated Host is the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of our Lord and still think the Protestants, who do not believe in it, had found a better way to honour this very Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity than the Church of Christ, before she did or after she forgot it. The other matter – how many still believe in Transubstantiation after 50 years of, well, receiving Communion like Protestants – I do not even consider, because I am interested here only in the True Catholics, those who believe all that the Church believes and profess all that the Church professes; and who can be excellent Catholics in many ways.
Still, how they can seriously reflect on what Holy communion is and still prefer to… give God to themselves is beyond me.
Damon and Michael Douglas put in great performances, as does the rest of the (star-studded) cast, who all deserve sincere praise for their commitment to this project, which others in the industry were reportedly too scared to touch. However, whilst both leads put in commendably watchable performances, I am not quite sure how much they were really able to feel some of the emotions they perform.
Read here (or perhaps not) the considerations of a chap who appears not to be a religious, but who is still published by the web site of the British Jesuits. I have written and reblogged about these people already.
The entire article does not mention, not even en passant, the sin of the Sodomites as being reprehensible in any way, shape or form. People simply are homosexual in the same way as they are, say, blond. There is a mention of “darker issues”, but one is not given to understand whether they relate to sodomy in any way. “The Big Sleep” was also very “dark” in its issues, come to that.
But the author goes further than that: whilst he questions the credibility of the source used for this movie, he notices the initial story was rejected as “too gay”, and the fact he says this movie is now one of the straightest he has seen in years not only tells you something about the movies he must normally watch, but also clearly indicates the movie lacks “gayness”.
The pearl is at the end: the actors must be “commended” for their “commitment” to a project other were “too scared to touch”; but you see, the main characters still aren’t, in real life, homos, so he wonders whether they are really “able to feel some of the emotions they perform”. In this man’s mind homo actors would have been better, of course. They would have had the right “feelings”, you know. Again, this film is not faggoty enough.
I thought actors are supposed to portray emotions they do not feel, which is why they can portray serial killers, and the like; but apparently a film about perverts requires perverts to be made properly, though the commitment to the portrayal of perversion deserves, how can it be otherwise, “sincere praise”.
Yes, this review must be from a Jesuit site. I wish I could say to you that if a religious instead of a layman had written the review, the Christian content would have been at least vaguely perceptible. Alas, this is not the case, and more likely than not such a writer would have abused of the initials after his name to be even more supportive of the sin of the sodomites. Jesuits are so keen to let you know how open minded they are. Heck, nowadays one must wonder about the odds of a Jesuit being straight in the first place.
This once great religious order is dying. The Pope complains such orders cling on their own money. The rot they have everywhere, he is unable or unwilling to see, much less correct.
The news reaches us Cardinal O'Malley will boycott the latest anti-Christian initiative of the latest Jesuit-run institution.
One must truly be stunned at the amount of damage this evil bunch of (real or honorary) atheist, satanic, homosexual bastards are doing to the Church.
It seems like the Jesuits want to go to hell en masse, and are bent on nothing but the most relentless war against Christ until the last one of them has kicked the bucket.
The usual Nazi suspects have called for Google to censor a smartphone app helping them to overcome their homosexuality.
Note the mentality of the Nazi faggots: they do not disagree with you, they want to silence you. Everything that goes against their faggotry must disappear.
These people truly are not only a danger for their own souls, but for democracy.
First of all, let me point out that the word “chicacchierone”, now bouncing on sites all over the world, does not exist. What is meant here is evidently “chiacchierone”, used to denote (generally in a rather playful way) people who talk a lot, or who talk too much. Again, the connotation is generally not negative at all.
Coming to the point of the chatty Pope, I would be the last one to consider it a problem that the Pope loves to talk. I am (erm, cough) not new to the phenomenon myself. The problem that I see with this Pope is that he doesn’t stop his chattering from reaching the Press, and – more gravely – that his chattering contains serious (and I mean: serious) rubbish and confuses the faithful.
If the Pope were able to talk freely about Catholic issues without getting it seriously wrong, no one would see a problem in his frequent tongue exercising; the joy of talking is part of what makes us Southerners so much (erm, cough again…) liked by each and everyone; but even if the Pontiff were unable to do so and gave disposition to keep his thought streaming strictly private, no scandal would ensue. The problem is that he does neither, and does not even seem to see a problem in what is happening.
The problem is not that the Pope is chiacchierone. It is that he prattles, prattles very publicly, and is fine with it.
I am sure we would all love a Pope who talks a lot, and talks well. We might see a problem in the banalisation of the Pope’s message, but if the message is straight and true this would be countered by a stream of Catholic wisdom reaching the world at large. Padre Pio was not the silent type himself. What we have here is both the banalisation and the confusion.
I hope the Holy Father will soon understand that this must stop.
One of the things that never fails to grate me is the use of the word "gay" to refer to homosexual tendencies or, worse, sodomitical behaviour.
I have written in the past about the power of words, but today I would like to focus on the use of this particular word, "gay".
The use of a word so blatantly wrong by any decent standard of the English language, and so obviously charged with a positive connotation to describe a perversion, always implies acceptance of the homosexual thinking and sodomitical behaviour.
Many thanks to Gerard Brady for pointing me out to an Eponymous Flower blog post exposing an internet site shamelessly dedicated to the provision of “dating services” to homosexual priests, in several languages.
I never thought I’d see the day, that’s all. Such is the extent of the devastation the endemic stupidity of the post-Vatican II era has caused.
I read around this Pope will be judged by history according to his ability of dealing with the restructuring of the Curia.
I’d rather say this Pope will be judged by history (and from the Lord above) according to his energy in dealing with sexual perversion within and without Church structures.
From the favourite outlet of liberal cretins, and those who would love to become it:
This week we saw reports about Pope Francis cryptically acknowledging the existence of a “gay lobby” in the Vatican, about which he supposedly believes something has to be done. But if I were on a crusade against gay marriage, like Maggie Gallagher or Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage (both devout Catholics), I don’t think I’d be very happy with this pope so far. In fact, I’d say he stinks.
[several Countries introduced measure to favour perversion] And Pope Francis had nothing publicly to say about any of it. Zero. Zilch. Nada. He was busy washing the feet of the poor and tweeting about how selflessness is a virtue. Go figure.
Back when Spain passed marriage equality in 2005, Pope Benedict whirled himself into a frenzy, railing against it regularly. He told Catholic officials there that any support of the law would cost them their jobs and told secular public servants who are Catholic to flout the law and refuse to marry gays. He traveled to Spain and railed some more, oblivious to protests of his trip. From then on, he regularly attacked gay marriage, even calling it a “threat to the future of humanity.”
Read the rest here.
Even the leftist retards at the HuffPo have started to notice that Pope Francis is doing perfectly nothing against the legalisation of perversion, and the perversion of marriage, whilst the entire planet is swept by a wave of sodomitical madness.
The words “go figure” about a Pope waffling around whilst Christianity burns are extremely fitting, and well describe what this Pontificate has given us in these three months. What the author of the article hasn’t said is that this Pope has scandalised and offended orthodox Catholics like, very probably, no Pope before him, at least in the first three months of his Pontificate.
But hey, he smiles a lot. Must be a good Pope, then.
Mala tempora currunt.
The more I read him, the more I am persuaded that we are punished with a Pope that doesn't know very much what he thinks, but seems determined to say it anyway.
Things have come to such a level of confusion and embarrassment, that most recently a Vatican spokesman, Father Rosica, had to clean some of Francis' mess, and to say very clear those who die in their atheism will go to hell.
Pope Pius XII, 1943.
Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.
Pope Francis, 2013.
“The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart, do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can… “The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ, all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!” We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.”
One of the assertions that leave one most speechless is the strange idea according to which when things are dirty they cannot be cleaned because… they are dirty.
“How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? There are so many of them!”, some people say. If there were any truth in such statements, nothing would even improve and nothing would be ever done to remedy wrong situations. In this perspective wrong situations can’t be righted, because they’re wrong. Another of my favourite ones is “How can Pope Francis get rid of the homosexual clergy? They do not go around saying they are homosexual!”. Ah, blessed ignorance! Terrorists didn’t go around saying they’re terrorist, either, and the mafia being extremely secretive hasn’t prevented countless mafiosi to be put in jail.
I answer to this that when there’s a will there’s a way, and in my experience a rotten situation can always be improved if the will and the good men to do it are there.
Pope Benedict started the work in a rather smart way: giving three old and trusted men, above suspicion of having ulterior motives, the task to sniff and ask everywhere. The result is an extensive report which, if the premises are correct and the men trustworthy, must be very accurate and highly credible.
Pope Francis should now do what every sound Pope – one who is determined to eradicate the problem, not “seeing what he can do” – would do in his place: form a commission of fearless and trusted Inquisitors to act on the report line for line, spy on everyone suspicious for as long as necessary, interrogate everyone and snoop everywhere, gather allegations and rumours, immediately suspend from every function those who do not collaborate in full, follow the leads to sufficiently robust facts, and immediately act on them removing from all Vatican offices and any priestly functions all those who have been found not to be above suspicion. Then, the leads should be followed outside of the Vatican, uncovering the friends outside: the sponsors and protectors, and the network of complicity.
After the first phase of the cleaning, those who, at the end of the usual, and usually lenghty, CDF investigations, have been found to be homosexuals should be defrocked, and kicked on the street. They have been a fraud probably since their first day in the seminary, so no injustice here.
As every Italian anti-mafia or anti-terrorism prosecutor will tell you, you eradicate mafia or terrorist structures by causing all those who have information about it or are involved with it to fear you more than they fear their own. If the Italian government was able to be feared more than the mafia and the terrorists (and it was: the Italian mafia is now a pale reflection of what it was until the Nineties, and terrorists have sung like canary birds notwithstanding the grave threats to their and their families’ lives), the Pope’s prosecutors will certainly be able to be feared infinitely more than the bunch of faggots working within the Vatican; but this, again, only if there is the will that it be so. You can’t eradicate a brutal problem any other way than by using brutal methods, and again the Italian experience – when excellent results against both terrorists and mafiosi were obtained only when ruthless determination took the place of politically correct pussyfooting – shows it works with problems infinitely more serious and more dangerous than a bunch of undercover faggots.
“But how to do this, Mundabor? How, how, ohhhh how? It is soooo, soooo difficult!”
It isn’t difficult at all, and can be done rather easily by smart guys with the right determination. If you have ever worked in biggish organisations you know what can be done, and fast, when the will is there to do it. It is almost impossible for a homosexual to avoid some people knowing, and some suspicions arising, then homosexual thinking must at some point translate into some form of homosexual acting. If a homosexual is, then, also a sodomite (I realise some won’t be, though I’d bet many will) there will be a series of leads linking to him: the people he knows, the places he frequents (yes, initially you’d have to have him followed: plenty of firms to assist you in that), what he has among his private possessions, the emails he writes, what he has on his computer, the expenses on his cards or his withdrawals from cash machines, what old friends and school mates say of him, and so on. I can’t imagine any homosexual priest could undergo this kind of scrutiny and still manage to hide his homosexuality. The Vatican also has the added bonus of not having to deal with all the guarantees of the legal system: a priest can have his computer confiscated, his possessions searched, his credit card statements seized etc just because he is ordered to do so, nor has the Vatican justice to ask the Italian authorities for permission to follow his own, search their rooms, hack their computers, & Co.
An investigator’s paradise.
The truth is that, in this as in many other cases, this homosexual net could develop and prosper only thanks to the indifference, incompetence, stupidity or complicity of many within the Church. Once the humous for the spreading of this cancer has been removed, there is no way it can survive.
Where there’s a will there’s a way. People far more dangerous and far better organised than this bunch of sods have been unmasked and neutralised. Don’t tell me a Pope can’t solve this problem in a matter of a few months, if he wants.
Reblog of the day
Let me tell you why I do not like the words “gay lobby” used by the Pontiff to describe the problem.
“Gay” means, as we all know, “happy”, “debonair” or “serene”. It doesn’t mean “pervert”. If a pervert starts calling himself “angelic”, he doesn’t become so, nor must we pander to his satanical self-delusion. If you don’t want to say “sod”, “faggot” or “fag”, “homo” will do admirably.
“Lobby” is also the wrong term, as lobbying is a perfectly legal and perfectly legitimate activity. This is in very sharp contrast to homosexuality, which is not compatible with the habit. It is not a coincidence that when the UK Ordinariate was instituted, it was said very clearly homosexual converts from Anglicanism would not be considered as priest. As a result, the homo activities of homosexual clergy are forbidden and are secretive, not allowed work of people who should not wear a habit in the first place; “mafia” is, therefore, a far more appropriate word than “lobby”.
Therefore, I invite you to read “homo mafia” whenever the Pontiff, or other prelates, use the term “gay lobby”. “Gay” is not an acceptable term to define homosexuals. It is politically correct, untrue, and utterly dangerous because it allows the perverts to give a positive twist to their perversion, and to change its perception.
This is exactly what has been happening in the past decades, and one of the most important single reasons why we are now confronted with the institutionalisation of said abomination. Pay attention to the words you use, because words are powerful and can be used to change perceptions, which one day will reshape realities.
Again, exactly he situation in which we are now.
I always admired the quiet style and soft diplomacy of blogging priests, a feat of which I am entirely incapable. I actually suspect in seminary they are trained to face confrontations or thorny issues in a fitting way, as I seem to recognise a certain “style” through the board; as if there were rules they all follow, though they don’t write about them.
In the last three months, the traumatic transition from one Papacy to the other has put blogging priests in front of huge challenges because of the (now) conflicting duties between loyalty to the Pope – which is clearly more pronounced in a priest than in a layman, as it should be – and the loyalty to sound – at times, basic – Catholicism, both of them slapped in the face by the present Pontiff everytime the fancy takes him to say something he thinks smart, or pleasing to his audience.
Speaking here only of the blogs I like, up to now I have recognised three styles of reaction. They all have in common a soft, diplomatic, conciliatory approach, but differ visibly in the way they do it. In my eyes, they are the following.
1. Ignore the scandals. Whenever the Pope blunders, the blogging priest of type 1 just does not write on the matter, at all. “Bishop XYZ appointed to the archdiocese of ABC”, or “Conference on TLM in ABC” are the likely blog post issues. They seem to say – without saying it – “what is a poor blogging priest to do in a situation like this…”. My sympathy goes out to them.
2. Amplify the good news. This type of blogger will insist in wanting that we see Francis as a continuation of Benedict, and exhibit in a triple salto mortale to persuade us Francis is a perfectly suited Pope, if we just care to look at things from the right angle. Not bad, merely different. Again, I appreciate the spirit and admire the good will. As I see it, though, the problem with this approach is firstly that, if you allow the metaphor, a peasant has succeeded a professor, and the difference is so brutally evident no amount of good will can ever bridge it; secondly, that the new Pontiff talks nonsense with such alarming frequency – and, which is worse, with such indifference towards his own blunders; clearly the fruit of humility – that every comparison with his extremely guarded predecessor has been untenable for the last, erm, three months. Summa summarum, I would call strategy Nr 2 a very nice try, that would have great success if Pope Francis were not so … Pope Francis.
3. Criticise brutally with nice words. This third – and by far littlest – group will word the criticism in such a way that it is still clearly within the boundaries allowed to a blogging priest, but does not hide much of everything that is going wrong. Again, I have found only very few of these blogs, but when I do they are worth the reading. They find the way to make the messages very clear, but so nicely wrapped.
It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves as this Papacy unfolds. I find it very difficult to believe Francis will want to make his reign more similar to Pope Benedict’s as time goes by; actually, I suspect the contrary will be the case, with the new Pope introducing more and more his own style (or lack thereof) in the years to come, particularly after the not improbable death of the Pontiff Emeritus (may he have a long and happy retirement) during Pope Francis’ pontificate.
We shall see. Please cut some slack to your favourite blogging priests, whose situation is rather different from the one of a layman, and not easy at all.
Reblog of the day:
I thought I would integrate the series of blog posts about the now fateful “chat” of our so pleasantly chatty Pontiff with his reflections on the “homosexual mafia”.
Firstly, the words of the Pontiff as reported. We are in the meantime assured even if we are asked to pretend they were not said verbatim (try another one; as if any religious group would dare to report the Pope’s words clearly as quotations of his own words if they weren’t, and with not one word denied by Vatican officers), the content is the same. So here we are:
And, yes… it is difficult. In the Curia, there are also holy people, really, there are holy people. But there also is a stream of corruption, there is that as well, it is true… The “gay lobby” is mentioned, and it is true, it is there… We need to see what we can do…
I didn’t understand the surprise at this, because it’s really nothing new. Besides the wild speculations about the 300-page report given to Pope Benedict in December, and probably what mainly moved him to resign, there is a matter of simple common sense that can only escape those who are so blinded by political correctness they can’t recognise an army of fags when they have it before them.
Sodomy is one of the worst perversions imaginable. The idea that more and more prelates express themselves in a way that indirectly supports it or makes it socially acceptable can in some cases be explained with extreme prostitution to the popular opinion, but one does not need to be a genius to understand that many among them must be perverts themselves. Again, it is a matter of logic and common sense. Alas, common sense is not so common nowadays, and is being substituted for common stupidity, because it looks nice.
Cardinal Danneels speaks in an extremely thinly veiled way in favour of so-called same-sex unions. Should his life not be scrutinised carefully? Cardinal Schoenborn promotes faggotry among the laity: is the suspicion of homosexual tendency not perfectly justified? Archbishop Paglia suddenly forgets two thousand years of Christianity: really? Why on earth would all these people promote such a horrible abomination? Purely to be popular? Or are they trying to satisfy the demons that have possessed them all their lives, giving an acceptable face to homosexuality?
Seriously, where do you think all these faggots are, “somewhere else”? Where is “somewhere else”? Could they operate only from the Vatican without support from powerful friends outside who pave their way to Rome? Could a powerful “gay lobby” within the Vatican work without the favour of bishops and Cardinals in- and outside? For how long are we going to kid ourselves?
It is, therefore, not surprising at all that there is a grave problem, or that this Pope – one who clearly doesn’t have his tongue under strict control, or under any control – would admit the existence of the problem during his friendly “chat”.
What is surprising, is that instead of using words like “we will have to eradicate this problem fast”, or “we must absolutely act on this”, he says “we need to see what we can do”, as if … there were things a Pope cannot do to tackle the problem. This is surprising from a Pope for whom “to do things” seems to be the first priority, and who had just told to the present(and I quote)
“I would rather have a Church that makes mistakes for doing something than one that gets sick for being closed up…”
Obviously, these are just few words among leftists friends, so I have not made of this the object of any post until now, preferring to deal with the vastly more important matter of the Rosary, or the other interesting matter of the religious orders, instead. But as I do not have a great confidence that this Pope can do much else than chatting, I cannot avoid being afraid people far smarter than him (no scarcity of that, I am absolutely sure) will soon persuade him what he can do is really not much, and there is not even any reason to create chaos and give ammunition to the enemies of the church: after all, Bishop X will retire in only 12 years, Monsignor Y can be moved to the next door office for a while, and Cardinal Z should be invited to pray much…
We shall see how this pans out. I wonder whether the Pope has read the famous 300 page report in the first place, because he doesn’t give the impression of being the avid reader, or the man eager to tackle different issues, preferring the easy and popular activities instead.
Of course the Homo mafia is powerful within the Church.
Just look at what our clergy say, and you’ll have no doubts.
Weigel’s argument is that Cardinal Ottaviani’s conviction that “error has no right” is now being used against us by rabid secularists, maintaining that Christianity must be silenced because…. error has no rights. This would show that Ottaviani’s conviction was wrong.
Now, apart from the huge problem that the Cardinal’s opinion is what the Church has always believed, the argument just doesn’t work from a logical point of view.
The idea that Error has no rights is not proven wrong because others oppress Christians or the Church using the same argument, for the very reason that… they are wrong. Christians have always been persecuted, and will always be persecuted irrespective of whether they hold to Truth in matters of religious freedom, or cave in to the modern “inclusive” mentality. If anything, the last years have abundantly showed even caving in to “inclusiveness” does not spare from persecution.
The argument, tough, does not work in an even more elementary way. If we say that “it is right to put dangerous criminals in jail” this does not prevent others from unjustly putting us in jail because they deem us dangerous criminals; but this does not negate the validity of the principle in the least!
How, then, do we distinguish those who are right from those who are wrong? Simply by knowing what is right and what is wrong. The Church is right, the Heresies are wrong. Christianity is right, Atheism is wrong. God is right, those who oppose Him are wrong. How do I know that? Because the Church says so. And who is the Church to say so? She is the Bride of Christ.
It’s simple, really. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and what is important is on which side one is. To say Muslims should have the right to build mosques if we want to have the right to build churches neglects the fundamental difference between a church and a mosque, Truth and Error, true God and false god.
We must stop with this inclusive, egalitarian waffle and resolutely take the side of Christ. Be assured caving in to the fashion of the time is not only to betray God, but will not ensure a single additional church being built, as these times of church closures and coming persecution abundantly prove.
One of the issues touched by the Holy Father during his disastrous meeting with CLAR was the one of the dying orders that cling to the vast possessions they have; a state of affairs the Pontiff doesn't like because he would rather use the assets for other purposes (presumably, giving the money away) whilst the interested parties reply the money is necessary to provide for them before the old nincompoops stretch – as the cynical Italian would say – their paws.
It stroke me as odd that the Pontiff didn't even mention with one word the lamentable state of these orders, or wondered how they could slowly commit suicide in such a stupid way, or admit the unprecedented crisis of religious life; he also did not waste one second to mention in passing the enormous damage created by the lack of religious personnel for the coming generations. His concern was, apparently, centred on the fact the old boys cling to vast real estate, which the Pontiff would rather see sold and, if the now fashionable rhetoric is to be followed, spread among the poor.
I am informed that horses are extremely centred in the present, which is why they can, say, be bought and sold many times in a way that would, say, break a dog's heart. The horse only thinks of today, they say. He is not in the least interested in the past, nor remotely concerned about the future.
The Holy Father's free-wheeling reflections concerning the money of the dying orders reminded me of the horse thinking, with the Pontiff faced with the utter ruin of a vast number of once great religious orders and the great damage for future generations, but concerned about the fact they don't want to give him the dough.
Alternatively, I can only imagine that his repeated “what do I know” and “perhaps” reflect his real thinking, and this Pope subscribes to the disquieting theory that the Holy Ghost doesn't need or want religious orders anymore, as in this oh so brilliant new age of ours, in which divorce, contraception, sexual perversion and defiance of Christian values are in a new Springtime, He will transfer the task to the oh so new man, and the contracepting, aborting, divorcing laity will take care of things. In this perspective, it makes perfect sense that the Holy Father say “what do I know” about the fact these orders are dying, but does know he would like their vast resources. Again, we would be here in front of a Jesuit rather unconcerned with the almost extinction of his and many other orders. Once again, note he says “they have no vocations” and sees in that a fact he can't really explain. That there are no vocations because the orders foxtrotted things up in the most egregious manner doesn't even enter his mind. Such is the mentality of a product of V II.
I Imagine this, because if this were not to be the case the Pontiff would most certainly focus on the restructuring of the orders according to pre-Vatican II rules, and encourage them to use their generally extensive resources to finance their growth; a growth which, if you believe God wants to have solid religious orders, you must believe will come once these orders are made solid again.
Nothing of this is to be seen in the Papal reflections. The traditional orders are all more or less dying, and his words suggest a sort of confrontation or at least opposition to his wishes that has gone on for some time, with the Vatican gently suggesting the orders divest part of their assets and the orders gently answering that they need them to fund their old age.
Probably horse mentality is, therefore, not really at play. Rather, a perfect easiness with the dying of religious orders. This is, of course, coupled with the near-perfect blindness of the V II man, either unable to see that the traditional orders are growing fast, or willing to consider their growth a residue of the past, as if those people still believed they live, erm, cough, in the Forties.
But hey, what does he know.
In the meantime, give him the money.
Stimulated (or you might say: terrified) by the recent appointment of a Jesuit as, erm, bishop of Rome, I have decided to visit more in detail the site of one of their provinces. Not being very good at Spanish, I decided to focus on the site of the British Province.
The "who we are" site tells us there are 20,000 Jesuits around, but doesn't tell us anything about their age.